Stunning NYT resignation letter by brave journo

[BovaryX]

Bari Weiss has written a stunning resignation letter from the NYT in which she attacks the absence of a diversity of views and accuses the paper of representing Twitter. Bari Weiss describes being hired in the wake of the shock and awe caused by Trump's election and the media's failure to predict or understand the result. It is a scathing indictment of the culture wars and the intolerance of anything other than left wing orthodoxy on an increasing range of issues.

^I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative^.

She’s absolutely right about Twitter. Fewer than 5% of the world’s population use it, yet it holds sway way above those numbers

NotBad

It's interesting, isn't it? The denizens of Twitter have been in a perma state of shock and awe at every election result on both sides of the Atlantic for years. Bari Weiss was hired in response to the media's failure to predict or comprehend Trump's election. James Bennett fell on his sword a few weeks ago after being condemned for publishing an opinion piece by Senator Tom Cotton. Bari Weiss described an internal battle at the NYT in the wake of his resignation between the old guard of liberals and those who replace them. Classic liberals believe in freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. These values are under sustained attack. By those who have an unwavering conviction of moral righteousness and zero tolerance for any dissent.

@Lamahaha

Do you have a link, Bovary? That is excellent -- but is it the whole letter? Does she specifically mention transideology?

Hostility towards trans women on the part of some feminists is v much a UK phenomenon.

I took out a subscription to the NYT a few months after Trump was elected expecting it to be something like the Guardian used to be and hoping to support investigative journalism that would bring Trump down. But I cancelled about six months in. It was totally pro-trans and took a very eccentric line on the UK. There were articles about Macron and Turkey that at first I thought must be insightful because they varied from the daily norm here, but I gradually began to suspect that the NYT foreign reporting just wasn't that good..

Now wondering about taking out a subscription to The Washington Post. Is that any better, US readers?

Bovary X, Classic liberals believe in freedom of speech and diversity of opinion

I think this is what I'm beginning to appreciate about the Times — a newspaper I vowed never to read again after it was purchased by Murdoch. But it does seem to allow for a wide range of voices and is the only paper I can think of that I would now call liberal. But hell, buying it is going to to hurt.

I am bemused by the sway Twitter has gained. It's so insular. Hence the chronic echo chamber that it has become.
It doesn't take a genius to step back from these platforms and see how they don't reflect wider public opinion.
The USA which has always been conservative, there isn't really a left there at all has a very right wing Government. The UK has a shambolic, corrupt, useless Tory Government who would probably still win if there was a snap election. Whilst Labour is still trying to instill purity and right think, threaten expulsion to those not toeing the line hard enough and quibbling about the Leader not being a good enough socialist.
It really is a political equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns...
The more Twitter feeds itself and the Guardian and the like try and force a narrative, the less some people like it and thus look to other platforms and people who seem to represent their values and the more moderates feel disenfranchised.

Shedbuilder, the Washington Post had a really good deal at the start of lockdown. About £30 for the year. I had high hopes, thinking I would be informed on both coronavirus and the up coming Presidential election. However I am finding it dull and not particularly insightful. I scroll through the menu, but there is little I want to read.

I have, however, had a subscription to the New Yorker for about ever, and this will continue. Not news as such, but articles, whether on politics, foreign affairs, or the arts are a meaty read.

Perhaps the future of subscription reading in a world of fast news, are magazines like the Spectator, the Economist, and the New Yorker. (I also pick up the Oldie sometimes for a train journey). Yes each has a political bent, but they expect to provide evidence and argument and allow space for a reader to come to their own view.

BTW I’m not from the US. My New Yorker habit started after a spell working there three decades ago. I love NY, though increasingly despair of the facile anti Trump things posted on my Fb timeline by supposedly liberal, educated and intelligent US friends. The question ‘why Trump?’ is never asked, perhaps because that might involve considering the deep income and opportunity divides that they can afford to ignore.

They have a bizarre anti British mindset

Wasn’t it the NYT that ran a much-mocked article about how dangerous London was and how Londoners feared for their lives every time they stepped out of their front doors? Something like that. The comments under the article became worthy of articles themselves because they were so funny.

Thanks for the heads-up on the Washington Post. Used to read The New Yorker (paper version) secondhand thanks to an American friend based here who used to visit and bring piles of them. It's very meaty, as you say, and I used to find it quite hard work, but it did have a variety of voices.

Don't know what's happened to me. Used to work in the media and be a real newshound but so much reporting seems dislocated from real life that I've stopped almost completely.

When I was younger (much,much younger) my dad advised me to always read two papers, one on the left and one on the right. He said I would have a much more balanced view, even though, as a family we were all left. Those were the days when the left was intelligent and it was easy to be left. I didn't follow his advise for years but eventually I did. Now I find the Times saves me buying 2 papers

Billi77
Bit of a broad statement: do you have any examples?

Thing with Bari Weiss is she's hardly a MAGA hat-wearing tub-thumper. She's against Trump, turned down an invite to join the International Dark Web and was disparaging of Tulsi Gabbard when on Joe Rogan (and still got it in the neck).

The NYT taking on a columnist after realising they were out of touch only to see said columnist resign due to their only being one permitted way to think and write there... well, it takes irony to a whole new level.

(Wrong 'their', darn it).

I am really disappointed in The New York Times (my paper) lately. I am finding it quite unobjective. I despise Trump, but I don't think it's helpful to write articles that treat him as if it is a truth that he is universally despised and a joke, because plainly he still has supporters and that could cause a false perception that he will be easy to defeat in November. Many people in the U.S., trust me, think that the transgender issue is out of hand. Read the comments to the articles that the Times publish on their own websites on the subjects. Also notice the difference between the "Times Picks," the "Reader Picks" and the tone of the complete batch of letters. It's very telling.

@NotBadConsidering

She’s absolutely right about Twitter. Fewer than 5% of the world’s population use it, yet it holds sway way above those numbers. In the UK it’s approx 11 million users, Australia 4 million, USA 48 million. That puts the percentage of the population around the 13-18% mark and that’s not even considering sock accounts. Now split that by left wing and right wing and you have a good reason why left wing parties can’t get elected in those countries. They genuinely think if they keep those fewer than 10% of the population on Twitter who are supporters happy with their work tweets, they’ll stroll into government. Meanwhile normal people just say “what the fuck?!” and vote the other way.

Even here we need to be mindful that just because stuff is on Twitter it doesn’t mean it matters as much as certain activists want it to. We put far too much stock in Twitter links here as to how much weight they carry in popular opinion. It’s also the downfall of TRAs. They think people are buying it but they’re not.

TL;DR Twitter should just fuck off really.

Yup!

@Pudmyboy

Billi77 Bit of a broad statement: do you have any examples?

She read it on twitter.

I used to have a job where I spent my mornings looking over all kinds of papers worldwide, and putting together a sort of news email pulled for people in a particular employment sector. The NYT was one of the American publications that I really relies on to find some well researched, longer articles on American related topics. As was The Guardian for UK papers.

Neither is up to the same standard now. My grandfather was an old-fashioned hard-news journalist. He used to say that any journalist who claimed to be unbiased was a liar and untrustworthy, but I think he'd be completely shocked at the type of bias that you see now - he still thought that any good journalist had to have a real understanding of all sides of a question, and present them fairly to the reader.

Really interesting. I think she makes some very important points. Her assertion that journalists behave as though the ‘truth’ is already known and ‘revealed’ to some is particularly interesting - this seems to me to be a real problem on the left. It is quasi-religious.

I agree that the (UK) Times is the best paper by a long way - the Guardian/Observer has some writers I like very much but overall it’s so worthy, complaining and self-righteous I can hardly bear it. I’ve also started subscribing to the Spectator. I disagree with a great deal of what is written but most of it is written well, it’s interesting, and there is a degree of independent thought that just doesn’t seem to be there at the moment on the left in general.

''Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.''

Case in point, the self-identfied journalist Laurie Penny tweeted this a couple of days ago.

''Sunlight is neither literally nor figuratively the best disinfectant. That’s bleach. The idea that rational, civilised debate in the marketplace of ideas has ever been a significant force in delivering social change is a heartbreaking fairytale.''

twitter.com/PennyRed/status/1282452089914810368

Penny clearly adopts the new consensus.

@sourdoughismyreligion

''Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.''

Case in point, the self-identfied journalist Laurie Penny tweeted this a couple of days ago.

''Sunlight is neither literally nor figuratively the best disinfectant. That’s bleach. The idea that rational, civilised debate in the marketplace of ideas has ever been a significant force in delivering social change is a heartbreaking fairytale.''

twitter.com/PennyRed/status/1282452089914810368

Penny clearly adopts the new consensus.

Do these people not see where that kind of thinking takes them, logically?

I think to a very scary place, even if it turned out the way they would like. Which it almost certainly wouldn't.

I worry that there are many organisations where orthodoxy has replaced talent as an essential qualification.

@Lamahaha

Do you have a link, Bovary? That is excellent -- but is it the whole letter? Does she specifically mention transideology?

I think it's a problem with a range of issues not merely trans. Trans issues are a symptoms of wider issues.

@Goosefoot

I used to have a job where I spent my mornings looking over all kinds of papers worldwide, and putting together a sort of news email pulled for people in a particular employment sector. The NYT was one of the American publications that I really relies on to find some well researched, longer articles on American related topics. As was The Guardian for UK papers.

Neither is up to the same standard now. My grandfather was an old-fashioned hard-news journalist. He used to say that any journalist who claimed to be unbiased was a liar and untrustworthy, but I think he'd be completely shocked at the type of bias that you see now - he still thought that any good journalist had to have a real understanding of all sides of a question, and present them fairly to the reader.

That's because what journalism is about. Empowering the reader to think about things and come to their own conclusions, rather than merely telling them what to think.

To empower a reader you have to put forward evidence and counter argument.

The problem is there is now no room for a counter argument nor a discussion about the negative unintended consequences of something and how we deal with those problems. Instead we are given a 'solution' and encouraged not to think beyond that because we've fixed the initial issue.

It's everywhere: both on the left and the right.

It's the 280 character culture where things must be simple and instantaneous and conform to the orthodoxy. God forbid you ever go, "errrrrr but what about x". That is to question authority and the leadership of the movement.

It's incredibly celebrity driven with 'influencers' rather than journalists now being important.

As a writer and journalist, I have been a faithful NYTimes reader for more than 30 years. It's true, the editorial board seems scared and there was a stark shift after Trump was elected in 2016. It's like the left started using his playbook and the journalists lost trying to balance the absurdity of Trump and the Twitter mob.

Online discourse is awful For any kind of a free exchange of ideas. Debate based on legitimate curiosity And good intent to achieve the best outcome are denigrated routinely as “concern trolling” and “sea lioning”. As if the only reason someone would state an opinion is because they are secretly lying or mean something entirely different than what they said.

I do blame the right for getting this started back around 2015. Right wing social media was incredibly dishonest and manipulative. The extent of propaganda and insular thinking on the “alt right” was to my eye pretty unprecedented in the last half century in the west.

I’m extremely disappointed that traditionally liberal institutions have decided that actually they really love the model of the alt right and plan to follow the model established on the right of “truth is what I tell you, everyone else is lying”.